Fastest Arctic Freeze on Record.

[westwall]

It seems the sea ice propagandists are wrong yet again. olfraud and Chris are constantly harping about the Arctic being ice free and yet here we are enough ice to cover 11,000 Manhattans. The freeze occured earlier (Gee who was it that predicted that?) and more comprehensivly than ever recorded! That's a poke at Chris But it was the fastest since records have been kept which is on the order of 30-35 years so in the overall scheme of things it doesn't really mean anything.

As you can see in the graph below the sea ice is rising quickly.

 

[IanC]

Don't worry. The Alarmists will find a way to show that it is just another effect of rising CO2.

 

[dimfry]

That's true, and many people knows that there is much ice on the arctics. But there is a large amount of data mismatch regarding that.

 

[k2skier]

For the actual, factual graph...

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

 

[Zander]

To climate alarmists:
If all of you mindless drones who believe in "Global warming" would kill yourselves, you could save the planet! Think about it !! Less people, less carbon!! Be real and be true to your beliefs! It is time for you pussies to Walk the walk !! Go ahead and off yourselves! You need to do your part by slashing your wrists and climbing into the bathtub. Be real. Own it. Kill yourself. We'll all be better off. See ya in the afterlife!!

 

[IanC]

For the actual, factual graph...

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

You prefer scandinavian data to NASA's?

Hmmm... You may have a point there, lol

 

[westwall]

For the actual, factual graph...

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

You prefer scandinavian data to NASA's?

Hmmm... You may have a point there, lol

Hi Ian,

The graph I posted is from the Scandanavians. K2's is from NASA. I know which one I trust more!

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, we know who cannot be trusted to tell the truth at any time.

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

Conditions in context

The revised minimum ice extent on September 19 occurred ten days later than the average date of the minimum ice extent for the period 1979 to 2000, and 8 days later than the 1979 to 2009 average. With the additional days of ice loss, 2010 is no longer the shortest period of summer ice loss since 1979.

 

[westwall]

Well, we know who cannot be trusted to tell the truth at any time.

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

Conditions in context

The revised minimum ice extent on September 19 occurred ten days later than the average date of the minimum ice extent for the period 1979 to 2000, and 8 days later than the 1979 to 2009 average. With the additional days of ice loss, 2010 is no longer the shortest period of summer ice loss since 1979.

You're correct on that bucko. NASA and NOAA have been caught cooking the books a lot lately havn't they!

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, the Norse have a wonderful site that shows in detail how rapidly the Arctic Sea Ice is shrinking with each decade.

Total ice area from 1978 to present — Arctic ROOS

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, we know who cannot be trusted to tell the truth at any time.

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

Conditions in context

The revised minimum ice extent on September 19 occurred ten days later than the average date of the minimum ice extent for the period 1979 to 2000, and 8 days later than the 1979 to 2009 average. With the additional days of ice loss, 2010 is no longer the shortest period of summer ice loss since 1979.

You're correct on that bucko. NASA and NOAA have been caught cooking the books a lot lately havn't they!

No, they have not. Look at the Norse data. Shows exactly the same thing as the NASA data. But keep right on lying, it is all that you have.

 

[logical4u]

OH NO! We are entering into an ice age! The west must have caused it because they cleaned up or shut down those poluting factories! America caused it! Gore will be shouting it soon.

IMHO here we go again.

 

[Old Rocks]

Sea Ice Concentration

Yes, the Norse know ice. And they are justly worried about the consequences of the rapid melt of the Arctic Sea Ice.

http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~karin/140/articles/MethaneHydrates.pdf

What causes release of methane hydrates is still poorly understood. Warm waters
may destabilize the hydrate zone. Hydrates on the surface of the ocean floor on a
ridge may then degass. The sediment may then become unstable and slide down the
ridge, exposing other layers of methane hydrate, accelerating the release. As an
example, the Storegga slump off the coast of Norway 8000 years ago could have
released between 1 and 4 GtC as methane.
Alternatively, an undersea earthquake today, say off the Blake Ridge or the coast of
Japan or California might loosen and cause some of the sediment to slide down the
ridge or slump, exposing the hydrate layer to the warmer water. That in turn could
cause a chain reaction of events, leading to the release of massive quantities of
methane.

 

[saveliberty]

Well, we know who cannot be trusted to tell the truth at any time.

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

Conditions in context

The revised minimum ice extent on September 19 occurred ten days later than the average date of the minimum ice extent for the period 1979 to 2000, and 8 days later than the 1979 to 2009 average. With the additional days of ice loss, 2010 is no longer the shortest period of summer ice loss since 1979.

So...it the second. Got to love how they put it in the worst light possible. Oh, and who is the website by? The National Snow and Ice Data Center, Supporting Cryospheric Research Since 1976. Let me translate. We need government money to keep our jobs.

 

[westwall]

Sea Ice Concentration

Yes, the Norse know ice. And they are justly worried about the consequences of the rapid melt of the Arctic Sea Ice.

http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~karin/140/articles/MethaneHydrates.pdf

What causes release of methane hydrates is still poorly understood. Warm waters
may destabilize the hydrate zone. Hydrates on the surface of the ocean floor on a
ridge may then degass. The sediment may then become unstable and slide down the
ridge, exposing other layers of methane hydrate, accelerating the release. As an
example, the Storegga slump off the coast of Norway 8000 years ago could have
released between 1 and 4 GtC as methane.
Alternatively, an undersea earthquake today, say off the Blake Ridge or the coast of
Japan or California might loosen and cause some of the sediment to slide down the
ridge or slump, exposing the hydrate layer to the warmer water. That in turn could
cause a chain reaction of events, leading to the release of massive quantities of
methane.

Global Warming Geo Engineering.org sounds like a real non-biased group there olfraud Also the hyperbole is funny as hell, mass extinction oh my! And the best part is not a single iota of evidence to support their alarmism. Not one. Lots of mays though. That's the problem with all of these people. They can never come out and say if you do this this will happen. Nope it's allways couched in maybe. That is a conjob not science.

 

[saveliberty]

New report out in September. Shows ice losses at half the rate previously thought.

Melting rate of ice caps in Greenland and Western Antarctica lower than expected | R&D Mag

Sort of makes you wonder how the satellites missed that.

 

[konradv]

New report out in September. Shows ice losses at half the rate previously thought.

Melting rate of ice caps in Greenland and Western Antarctica lower than expected | R&D Mag

Sort of makes you wonder how the satellites missed that.

Makes me wonder how you missed "Shows ice losses"!!! It's like those who say models aren't trustworthy, because they show a wide range of possible temp rises. The take-away message should actually be: they ALL show rises. Of course, there are different opinions and approaches to the problem, but no one's saying they're staying the same or going down.

 

[saveliberty]

New report out in September. Shows ice losses at half the rate previously thought.

Melting rate of ice caps in Greenland and Western Antarctica lower than expected | R&D Mag

Sort of makes you wonder how the satellites missed that.

Makes me wonder how you missed "Shows ice losses"!!! It's like those who say models aren't trustworthy, because they show a wide range of possible temp rises. The take-away message should actually be: they ALL show rises. Of course, there are different opinions and approaches to the problem, but no one's saying they're staying the same or going down.

Losses in two areas. You fail to note that the Eastern side is growing at a pace that nets ice cap growth overall.